alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hoch, Appellant, *v.*Boyer, Appellee.

(No. 31693

Decided March 16, 1949.)

*Mr. Elmer McClain,*for appellant.

*Mr. Paul T. Landis,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart and Turner, JJ., concur.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Nov. 15, 2023, BRS Annual Meeting

Presentation Available

Print

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s

(APHIS) Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) presentation from the November

15, 2023, Annual Stakeholder Meeting is available on the APHIS website.  A Section

508 compliant version of the presentation, the meeting transcript, and other

meeting materials will be posted when they become available.  

Thank you to everyone who joined us in-person and virtually. We greatly appreciate

your time and look forward to seeing you in the future.   

View BRS Nov. 15 Stakeholder Meeting Presentation
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSA CENICEROS,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00080-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20130C07236)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until October 10, 2018. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma, the Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before October 10, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7

th day of September., 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply580Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Carol Cline (n... (not verified)PermalinkNovember 13, 2017 - 12:49pmAre you going to be near St. Louis during your trip to the Capitol? Or close by??
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
October 31, 1996

18477

#### State v. Nakamaru

Order No. 96-33

Affirmed
#### State v. Tawney

17308

10/07/96

Affirmed
NUMBER 13-14-00325-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

IN THE INTEREST OF D.P., A CHILD

On appeal from the 135th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides 

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Appellant’s brief in 

this matter was due on July 10, 2014. Appellant has neither filed her brief nor filed a 

motion for extension of time seeking additional time to file it. 

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals, but include additional expedited 

deadlines and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). The 

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure "as far as reasonably possible" that 
2

appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). Given the nature of these cases and the 

shortened appellate deadlines, the Court does not favor motions for extension of time to 

file the record or briefs. In accordance with the limited time for consideration of these 

appeals, it is the policy of this Court to limit extensions of time to file a brief to one tenday extension of time absent truly extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.6(d). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant’s counsel, Arnold K. Hayden, Jr., to file the brief 

within ten days of the date of this order. No further extensions of time will be granted 

absent truly exigent and extraordinary circumstances. The Clerk of this Court is 

ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on appellant by certified mail, return receipt 

requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

21st day of July, 2014.
No. 92-8441.

#### Orozco *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Rudy TRUJILLO, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4755.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 29, 1977.

Gerald M. Gallivan, Director, Defender Aid Program, University of Wyoming, Laramie, and Wayne F. Flagg, Senior Law Student, University of Wyoming, Laramie, for appellant.

V. Frank Mendicino, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., and Kenneth Vines, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLIN-TOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant entered a guilty plea to a violation of § 6-42, W.S.1957, which charged the crime of obtaining merchandise and property with intent to defraud. The district judge sentenced this appellant to not less than three nor more than four years in the penitentiary. The maximum penalty provided by said section was not to exceed five years, to which may be added a fine of $5,000, or both. This appeal arrives in this court as a result of the fallout from *Anders v. State of California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. den. 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377. The attorney appointed herein and filing this brief makes it clear that this appeal is submitted at the request of defendant and in accordance with his wishes. To understand this matter we set out the issues which defendant insisted he tendered to us:

> “1. Didn’t get a fair trail [sic].

> “2. I am not a habiual [sic] criminal.

> “3. I didn’t forgery or fraud [sic] no one name.

> “4. My criminal record is not that bad for sending me in to the penitentiary-

> “5. Daniel Fisher said in his report that I shouldn’t be put on probation.

> *1247“6. J. F. Mahoney didn’t go throw [sic] my record in court.

> “7. J. F. Mahoney went by Tim Colem-ann and Daniel Fisher words in court.

> “8. My lawyer didn’t defented [sic] me in court right.”

Counsel for appellant advises that he has carefully reviewed the record and evidence and finds no basis or other grounds to support appellant’s appeal. This court has also made such an examination and is in agreement therewith. We therefore find that this appeal upon these grounds would be “wholly frivolous,” *Anders v. State of California,*supra, 87 S.Ct. at 1400.

Appellant’s counsel has raised the issue of the undue severity of this sentence and asks this court to review the sentence imposed. In light of our well-established rule and decisions, we might view the question involving the severity of the sentence and request for review in this same light. The rule governing appellate review of sentencing in this jurisdiction is clear. The sentence to be imposed upon a guilty defendant is completely within the discretion of the trial court, *Hicklin v. State,*Wyo., 535 P.2d 743, 754; *Bentley v. State,*Wyo., 502 P.2d 203; *Jaramillo v. State,*Wyo., 517 P.2d 490, 492; *Hahn v. State,*78 Wyo. 258, 322 P.2d 896. Appellant does not contend that the trial court abused its discretion, and our examination of the record would negative any such contention.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT  99.2

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                    As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                          Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AFG Investment Trust C (the "Trust"),
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Principal  Financial  and  Accounting  Officer  of the Trust's Managing Trustee,
hereby  certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  that:
(1)     the Report of the Trust filed today fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15  (d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934; and
(2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations of the Trust.

                    /s/  Richard  K  Brock
                    ----------------------
                    Richard  K  Brock
Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Treasurer  of  AFG  ASIT  Corp.,
the  Managing  Trustee  of  the  Trust
(Principal  Financial  and  Accounting  Officer)
                                               November  19,  2002
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 28, 2018

NO. 03-18-00261-CV

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services; Henry Whitman, in His Official 

Capacity as DFPS Commissioner; Texas Health and Human Services Commission;

Charles Smith, in his Official Capacity as HHSC Executive Commissioner; 

Corrections Corporation of America; and The GEO Group, Inc., Appellants

v.

Grassroots Leadership, Inc.; Gloria Valenzuela; E. G. S., for herself and as next friend for 

A. E. S. G.; F. D. G., for herself and as next friend for N. R. C. D.; Y. E. M. A., for herself 

and as next friend for A. S. A.; Y. R. F., for herself and as next friend for C. R. R.; 

S. J. M. G., for herself and as next friend for J. C. M.; K. G. R. M., for herself and as next 

friend for A. V. R.; C. R. P., for herself and as next friend for A. N. C. P.; B. E. F. R., for 

herself and as next friend for N. S. V.; S. E. G. E., for herself and as next friend for 

G. E. A.; Leser Julieta Lopez Herrera, for herself and as next friend for A. B.; and 

Rose Guzman de Marquez, for herself and as next friend for D. R., Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

REVERSED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the amended final judgment rendered by the trial court on December 16, 

2016. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was 

reversible error in the judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s amended final 

judgment and renders judgment granting appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing 

appellees’ rule-challenge claims with prejudice. Appellees shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### Sanford v. Tanaka

16902

2/21/95

Affirmed
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification:
 
 I, Richard K Brock, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AFG Investment Trust D;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 
 6.  The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 
 /s/ Richard K Brock
 Richard K Brock
 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of AFG ASIT Corp.,
 the Managing Trustee of the Trust
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 August 13, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

h0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144462

QUALITY ONE CONSTRUCTION &

DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 144462

COA: 303674

Wayne CC: 10

- 010696

- AS

CITY OF DEARBORN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2011

order of the Cou rt of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Lovell SMITH, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. PC-77-719.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 23, 1978.

*1216ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Petitioner, was tried in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma with the crime of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony; Case No. CRF-69-2849. On March 9, 1970, he was sentenced to Fifty (50) years imprisonment. Thereafter, on June 23,1970, petitioner was tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma of the charge of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony, Case No. CRF-70-931. On July 1, 1970, he was sentenced in Case No. CRF-70-931 to a term of Seventy-five (75) years imprisonment. Petitioner appealed both convictions. On February 24, 1971, this Court affirmed the conviction in CRF-70-931, and on June 23, 1971, this Court reversed with instructions to dismiss the conviction in Case No. CRF-69-2849, on the grounds that that case was barred by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy due to the trial of Case No. CRF-70-931. On August 26, 1975, the petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief in Case No. CRF-70-931 which was denied on October 1, 1975. This Court affirmed that denial on October 17,1975, Case No. PC-75-607.

Petitioner filed a second application for post-conviction relied in Case No. CRF-70-931, on September 17, 1977. On September 28, 1977, the district court denied petitioner relief. From that denial of relief, petitioner has appealed to this Court.

Petitioner cites two propositions of error. The first is that the judge and the counsel in the trial of his Case No. CRF 70-931,

> “[ijndicated a bias against the Petitioner and deprived him of due process of law, by driving Petitioner off the witness stand.”

Petitioner cites no reason why that alleged error was not raised in his previous application for post-conviction relief, so that claim is barred by the dictates of 22 O.S.1971, § 1086.

Petitioner next alleges that his second conviction, No. CRF-70-961, should have been barred by reason of his prior jeopardy in Case No. CRF-69-2849. However, this Court has long held that the prohibition against double jeopardy can be waived by the defendant. See: *Johnson v. State,*Okl.Cr., 550 P.2d 984 (1976). In not raising the jeopardy question in this case until now we held that the petitioner has waived the prohibition against double jeopardy. Furthermore, as the petitioner did urge double jeopardy in the case that was tried first, and as the case was dismissed on the basis of double jeopardy, the conviction in only one of the two cases was affirmed on appeal. However, in the interest of justice we reduced petitioner’s sentence to a term of Fifty (50) years imprisonment, as that was the sentence he received in the case that was tried first.

For the above and foregoing reasons the denial of petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief is DENIED as MODIFIED.

So ordered.

*1217Witness our signatures, and the seal of this court, this 23rd day of January, 1978.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, P. J.,

TOM BRETT, J.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeWhat We Do
Sustainability at the Architect of the Capitol
The Capitol campus is an intricate network of buildings, infrastructure and thousands of people who work in or visit the properties managed and maintained by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC).
        
                  The AOC's commitment to sustainability is demonstrated through our robust energy conservation and sustainability programs. The AOC incorporates sustainable design and construction practices into the major projects executed throughout Capitol Hill.

The agency has been actively working toward established sustainability goals for energy reduction, water conservation and waste diversion to drive continuous improvement and embed sustainability into its operations, planning, design and construction.

Performance & Accountability Report
	Report on Energy and ConservationRecycling Program

The AOC's campuswide recycling program diverts waste from landfills and makes it easy for offices to collect recyclable materials.

U.S. Capitol Building Recycling (*Capitol Network Only*)
	House Office Buildings Recycling (*Capitol Network Only*)
	Senate Office Buildings Recycling (*Capitol Network Only*)
          
    
    
      We love our jobs. Do you? Come work with us.
        View Job Listings Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<PAGE>



                                   EXHIBIT 21
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                PERCENTAGE              STATE OF
       NAME OF PARENT                      NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                    OWNERSHIP            INCORPORATION
       --------------                      ------------------                    ---------            -------------
<S>                           <C>                                                <C>              <C>
Hanover                       Tri-Co. Foods Corp. ("Tri-Co")                       100%                Pennsylvania
Hanover                       Spring Glen Fresh Foods, Inc.                        100%                Pennsylvania
Hanover                       Consumers Packing Company                            100%                Pennsylvania
                              d/b/a Hanover Foods - Lancaster Division
Hanover                       Hanover Insurance Corporation Ltd.                   100%            Grand Cayman, B.W.I.

Hanover                       Nittany Corporation                                  100%                  Delaware
Hanover                       Bickel's Snack Foods, Inc.                           100%                Pennsylvania
Tri-Co                        Alimentos Congelados Monte Bello S.A.                100%           Republic of Guatemala
Tri-Co                        Sunwise Corporation                                  100%                  Florida
Tri-Co                        Mayapac, S.A.                                        100%           Republic of Guatemala
</TABLE>